| Author | Message | ||
     Mcdusa1 |
There is nothing like socialized medicine to fix our social security and Medicare problem see link. http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/h ealth/s/1421402_two-patients-died-after-waiting-in -ambulance-outside-full-oldham-hospital-unit | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Thats Britain, what is happening here is a bit more insideous. Ie with EMTALA and being certified as a level 3 trauma center you have to take anyone that presents themselves with a 'emergency' Well since most people have been avoiding scheduling regular office visits, and doctors arent accepting new patients, people are clogging the ER rooms with indeed non 'urgent' care; and because the legislation requires them to be seen without basis of proof of payment (or citizenship-watch this one) that the ER depts are over run, under funded, understaffed, and over utilized. Seattle has lost 3 level 3 trauma centers and have gone to 'urgent care critical centers' meaning if you didnt arrive in an ambulance, you are not being seen; no WALK in patients.... so now you have the additional expense of unpaying customers raking up non medical ambulance treatment for 'suspected' emergent positions. Three of them are no longer taking patients from local calls that are not screened by the ambulance staff to be life threatening, critical, or related to an accident (because the lawyers get into accident claims and eventually you are getting paid) It is bad, and it gets worse. The compensation for ER oncall physicians is pathetic, and most are not accepting those assignments, so locally those staffed are 'supervised' interns or residents on a learning curve. 'Quality!' Social medicine doesnt work, it is why the Ukraine is moving to MARKET driven alternatives! it is why capitalism is alive and well - because they KNOW socialism doesnt work. America is blind to the failures occuring now, and the impending catastrof*cky that is coming Hype and Chains. It goes live 1/1/2014. | ||
| Ourdee |
Yes, I am highly motivated. I have lost 28 pounds so far and want to drop another 32. My chance of survival is going up. | ||
| Xodot |
if your patients are clogging http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpjXY8WKmQA in the waiting room, they can't be too sick! | ||
| Trojan |
Social medicine doesnt work, it is why the Ukraine is moving to MARKET driven alternatives! it is why capitalism is alive and well - because they KNOW socialism doesnt work. America is blind to the failures occuring now, and the impending catastrof*cky that is coming Actually social medicine works a lot better than 'pay per heal' type insurance/payment type treatment and is actually a very good system. Don't confuse Socialism with social care. People always quote the exceptional cases from the UK Health Service like the one above, but they are incredibly rare and treatment is very very good in general. I'm sure we could find similar horror stories (or worse) from countries without social medical care. However, to get the best service the state needs to constantly invest in the system and that is paid for by general taxation. An ageing population and improvements in medical technolgy mean that more needs to be invested per capita than we currently get. No investment = no healthcare system  The UK system has had billions spent on it in recent years but a lot of that money has been wasted on redundant IT systems and management rather than healthcare unfortunately I would still say that the UK healthcare system is one of the best in the world that offers free point of service health care,and is a model that other countries could do well to look at. I had to have an operation on my back recently that I was quoted £18000 (US$30,000 approx)for private hosptial treatment. I got my doctor to refer me to the local NHS hospital and had the same operation carried out by the same surgeon for no cost under the National Health Service. I had to wait for 3 months rather than have it done immediately but that was acceptable to me  Don't knock it until you've tried it | ||
| Rwven |
In the US they die in the waiting room... Trojan, The NHS didn't do it for "no cost". You had to reach into your wallet at a different time is all, and someone else had to reach into their wallet to subsidize you. | ||
| Aesquire |
So Thatcher was right. Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money. Don't bother to claim it's not socialism. "Social Democracies" "social care" and in it's worst form... "social justice". All buzz words for taxing me to give to another. It just cannot work. The math proves it. Even if there were NO OTHER social welfare programs, eventually "social care" will absorb all the money. Population aging means less workers to exploit to pay for it. It CANNOT work. Toss in roads, police and then the rest of the "social safety net" and it just speeds up the problem. If Europe hadn't had the U.S. covering their defense needs against the Soviet Empire, it would have collapsed in the 50's, or they'd be subservient to their masters in Moscow. Ponzi schemes. | ||
| Trojan |
It just cannot work. Correction. It does work. It has worked here since 1947 and across Europe in various forms for around the same amount of time. Of course somebody has to pay for it, but by paying within the tax system you get a much fairer system surely? Are you really in favour of the worst form of capitalism involved in 'I'm alright Jack!' mentality? I'm no socialist but I would absolutely fight to the death to keep the NHS as we have it in the UK (even though it is far from perfect). If Europe hadn't had the U.S. covering their defense needs against the Soviet Empire, it would have collapsed in the 50's, or they'd be subservient to their masters in Moscow. Don't get me started on that  | ||
| Hootowl |
"but by paying within the tax system you get a much fairer system surely?" Perhaps you're not aware that in the US, almost 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal income tax, and some percentage of that nearly 50% actually get a check from the IRS every year. Not a refund of overpaid taxes mind you, but actually money collected from other taxpayers and then redistributed. How, exactly, is that "fair"? | ||
| Guell |
How about I pay for my own insurance and you pay for yours. If you can't afford it the burden should not be forced upon me. | ||
| Sifo |
So how much innovation is being done in medicine in the UK. I know of tons of innovation that comes from US companies looking to make money from a better mouse trap. You say it works, but it only works on the back of other systems that are willing to engineer the advances. Government has never been known for advancing technology, aside from better ways of annihilating the enemy. Even that relies heavily on private industry for the most technologically advanced systems. So I really wonder where socialized medicine would be right now it not for the innovations that have come from the profit motive of privatizes systems. Of course somebody has to pay for it, but by paying within the tax system you get a much fairer system surely? I notice that the "fairest" social systems are never optional and are always backed with the threat of incarceration. | ||
| Mountainstorm |
When I saw the title the first thing that came to mind was Socialized Medicine would lead to a much higher death rate, dropping the number eligible for Social Security. Am I wrong? | ||
| Davegess |
I'm with Trojan on this one. I don't think the British model is necessarily the best way to go BUT it is one of the examples of what can work. I think we in America can build a better system but our current system is broken and unsustainable. We are going to see, over the next ten years, more and more employees dropping or dramatically reducing coverage as the cost are rising out of control. The US per capita expense on health care is over double, close to triple, what the Brits pay. We have to be willing to admit that health care, like single malt scotch, is a scarce good and is thus rationed. In the US we currently ration by making sure a large part of the population does not have good access to care. Of course we than require that providers provide care for free in sort of emergency. Thus we get the situation where a person with a sinus infection can't get treatment but when that turns to pneumonia the ER has to treat them and roughly 10 times the cost of treating the sinus infection. | ||
| Reepicheep |
That's one reasonable perspecitve to look at it from (really! I'm not dismissing you!) I'd be more inclined to support that position if people were screened from "free" health care based on other choices they have made. Nobody with cable TV, a cell phone, or internet access in their home should be "entitled to free health care". And anyone getting health care support should be working, in school, or volunteering full time. Let me even speak some herasy... if you making *me* pay for *your* health care, you can't ride a motorcycle, you are have to maintain a calorie controlled diet, and you have to exercise according to a Dr's managed plan. If you don't, you loose my money. The irony is that I find this kind of "I control your life" extremely offensive, it's almost the last thing I want to do. So please don't put me in that position and ask for my money. I've spent time with people in awful situations. It was quite an eye opener. A great MANY of them aren't broke because of what they were given, they are broke because they make consistently awful decisions. In those cases, the more you "give" the more fuel you pour on the fire. We can probably agree on insurance reform though. That's just as bad as when somebody elects to spend the insurance money on a big screen TV, then wants me to foot the bill when they get sick. They bet, they lost. Same deal for the insurance company... decide if you want to cover somebody, but when you take their money, then you cover them, no weaseling out of it. | ||
| Raceautobody |
How about I pay for my own insurance and you pay for yours. If you can't afford it the burden should not be forced upon me. The burden already is being forced on you. Out of control health care costs. | ||
| Hootowl |
"health care, like single malt scotch, is a scarce good and is thus rationed" It isn't rationed. You can buy as much as you want. I guarantee that if you buy ALL of it, they will make more, and other distillers will pop up making more of the stuff. And, the price will go down. Now, if you go in to the store, take a bottle, don't pay for it, or expect the distiller to give it to you for free, or for someone else to pay for it, they will most certainly ration it, production will go down, and prices will go up. What's the wait time for surgery in the UK? Last I heard it was 14 weeks. Hope you don't need any work done. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
What you will see over the next ten years will be the COLLAPSE of the medical care directive facilities, payment, and remittance systems. Your first hit will be that Domestic Commercial Health Carriers will 'Domicile' their HQ off continent, off country, out of compliance requirements from this bill. They will then move to selling a 'tourist' individual plan to the US citizens and rating them and paying them on out of area profilers. As they are not DOMESTIC entities, they are NOT required to be compliant with the new ACA. It is EXACTLY what happened in Washington state in 96-98 when Debra Senn enacted the exact same plan programs (no pre exist, guaranteed issue, 'high risk pool requirements', expansion of entitlement enrollments, and forced compliance under penalty of loss of license, prosecution, forfeiture of assets) 'Individual' plan carriers FLED the state like avoiding the plague; many group plans moved there 'domiciled' HQ to Idaho or Oregon (and because of recipricol agreements were still able to sell in the state, but were required to be compliant with the other states protocol requirements) You are going to see an 'off shoring of commercial insurance' in a tidal wave exodus. (and isnt that what they want anyways?) the forced selection of a state run substinence entitlement program? yep The other rising trend will be grey market, black market care options. Meaning, providers will start to REFUSE to accept medicare, medicaid, and in some cases even commercial insurance as payment. This is happenining in Texas en mass. It is because the reimbursement rate sucks. Say you are Joe the Plumber and a house call is 135, but because you are section 8 housing, Joe only gets paid 39 per visit. ooooh but you will make it up in VOLUME because look at how many section 8 clients with bad pipes you have! oh, and if you accept the section 8 housing contract, you are PROHIBITED by law from balance billing the client for any unpaid portion, nor able to ad 'service supplements' to offset your cost, and now with the new legislation - you must prove that 85% of your billed expenses went directly to fixing plumbing - not admin support, marketing, transportation, operating costs, salaries, communication requirements, facility fees, business licensing filings.... how long before plumbers decide not to fix the pipes in a section 8 development ? The 'exchanges' run em, go test them for yourself at the glitzy gov web page... now run it against the information that you could have gotten from a google search in your area for health plans....(that was somebody's market stimulus golden cow) Further on the exchanges- based only on enrollment...(because you cant rate the policy on gender, health history, health status, age, location, of course race or credit rating) it is the same TOXIC asset problem that hit the housing market, and bankrupt it. You have 'pools' of eligible enrollees that are supposed to pay their premium without any underwriting or risk mitigation analysis. It fails. the exact same way ENRON failed. It is a group of 'exposure' not of calculated risk. The costs will out strip the premiums quickly, and any resaling of the pools (which will occur, why do you thing AIG is still around) will FAIL at that level. It is what BANKRUPTED insurance companies from the North Ridge Fire, the 93-4 Hurricane Season, the 90 Seattle winter storms, and why there is not a single independent flood insurance provider in the country. the risk is too great, the pay in premiums dont offset the loss, and it is NOT a viable market. At 2600 pages over a 3 day weekend, the didnt read it, didnt comprehend it, dont have any expertise in insurance, and passed it against the will of the public - there is no clearer example of taxation with out representation in our history (dont fool yourself, the IRS isnt in charge of this thing for no reason) | ||
| Reindog |
City, You are unfair and a Hater. And probably a racist. Shut up. -Reindong. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
And I have 15 years military analyst training, 10 years claim audit fraud detection across 12 companies -18 different legacy systems, a bachelors in Soviet State Sponsored Economics, and a Masters in Health Care Plan and Administration, I have been licensed as an agent and a broker for Health, Life, Disability, Long Term Care, Pre Need Financial Planning, and Securities. And I have READ the Bill in its entirety, written 10 critical distinct papers to its content and intent, and published two of them. I am headed overseas.... because it is where the market is heading. I am not going there on a lark, the women are a bonus. The offshoring of Commercial insurance has already begun, the tide will swell before 2014, and by 2016 your domestic choices will be between bad, few, and government owned. ENJOY. | ||
| Reindog |
Thanks for sharing your informed opinions, City. Your posting are enjoyable and informative. It is incomprehensible that Liberals are blinded to the truth of the facts that you lay out and continue to boldly support this march towards the cliff. You are a racist and want to steal from poor people. You are unfair. -Reindong. | ||
| Court |
>>>Nobody with cable TV, a cell phone, or internet access in their home should be "entitled to free health care". That may not work. Welcome to the only country in the world where >90% of folks living below the poverty level have:
You may need to modify your criteria. "Poor" in the United States has come to mean little more than your parents weren't required to pay for your Harvard edcuation, the feds did it for you. | ||
| Davegess |
Scarce goods is an economic term. Pretty much everything we buy is considered a scarce good and has a rationing element to it. The old supply and demand thing. All I am trying to say is that we spend stupid amounts on health care now and don't get a real good return on this. We can do far better than the current system. The British, the Germans the Swiss, the Canadians, all offer systems that seem to work fairly well. Take the good points of all of them, mix in some American innovation and competition and I suspect we can come up with a plan. However when the reaction of the right is "NO SOCIALISED MEDICINE" and of the left is "WE NEED NOTHING LESS THAN PUBLIC HEALTH CARE" we get nothing. We need to move beyond the tea party and left wing slogans and actually discuss this. I figure the Obama plan is a decent start. It meets my first requirement; my conservative buddies hate it and my liberal buddies hate it to. If you piss of both ends of the political spectrum I figure you are moving in the right direction. | ||
| Blake |
I keep hearing all kinds of folks decrying the "exploding cost of health care", or the "skyrocketing cost of health care", or the "unsustainable cost of health care", or... you get the idea. What you never hear is the credible explanation for the ever rising cost of health care. Anyone? Hint: What medicines, treatments, cures, surgeries, etc are available now that were not available thirty, twenty, even just ten years ago? What is the cure rate for the two leading causes of death, cancer and heart disease, in America versus Britain or any other socialized health care state? How many people then does our health care system save from death due to heart disease or cancer who would otherwise be dead? Where is your bleeding heart for those folks, who when subjected to the socialized system will be sacrificed in order to accommodate the "poor" (please see Bill and Court's comments on "the poor" in America above). The whole miserable evil idea of Social justice is nothing but theft and communism. Why have the cost of dental care, eye care, and elective cosmetic surgery not increased like major medical care? The free market works. The federal gov't was NEVER meant to be a charity for the poor, EVER! This nonsense will be the ruin of America. The entire nation will become inner city Detroit. What has failed on a state basis is now being forced upon the entire nation, unless you're in a union with a waiver. I sure appreciate your commentary Brian. I'd like to get a copy of your papers. Okay if I share your commentary here with some friends? (Message edited by Blake on May 25, 2011) | ||
| Reindog |
DG, That is some weird logic you are using. If everyone disapproves of something, maybe it is wrong to begin with. The Obama plan is NOT a "decent start" unless your goal is decimate health care. What part of City's treatise do you not understand or disagree with? * Tort reform. * Competitive insurance across state lines. * Empowerment of RNs for front line medicine. * Preventative medicine. * Portability of health records. Those are just a few of the great ways to start. Obamacare addresses NONE of this. | ||
| Reindog |
"One size fits all" is the approach this Wonderful Government tends to take in problem solving. The unintended consequence is instead of solving a problem, it usually creates a whole new family of problems with all their relatives in tow. And that "one size" usually fits no one. -Reindong. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Or maybe it's just an obviously bad plan... When I was young, I was a flaming liberal. Middle age made me a strong conservative. Now, as I officially approach old-fart-ness I am more of a pragmitist... So the rule I would say is that if you want a social program, you have to represent it honestly to the voters, get a straight up voter approval, and fund it completely. This "social programs funded by debt" is simply theft from our children, and I don't believe the government has a right to spend money it hasn't collected. Maybe that's something the right and left can agree on... | ||
| Cityxslicker |
sure go for it, its not like anyone in charge is listening ! I have one out on Amazon 'The Case for Unplugging Granny' that analyses and uses the ACTUAL text of the bill to go into depth on the 'death panels' and the 'quality' panel The other was published through the Journal at the Grad school, I dont have that one out to media yet, I have to clean up the formating and convert it to HTML and then it can hit the e book format as well. It should be on the model of your car expenses. You take it in to get preventative services done, or you do them yourself, if you are capable, and NOBODY comes back to the government in some sort of Ponsi distributive network taxation, allocation for the big jobs like transmissions or engine rebuilds. because .... it is your car, your responsibility. Your body should be absolutely no different. (but then only the rich will get medical care!.... so I suppose nobody that is 'poor' has a car ) It is a product and a service, not a right, not an entitlement - get the F outta my pocket. do yourselves a favor and READ the bill, because the ones that passed it, certainly didnt, nor the 2600 page Financial bill that they passed the following month. | ||
| Sifo |
What you never hear is the credible explanation for the ever rising cost of health care. Anyone? Hint: What medicines, treatments, cures, surgeries, etc are available now that were not available thirty, twenty, even just ten years ago? This is exactly what socialized medicine will fix. When innovation stops so does the costs associated with that innovation. Only then have you addressed the major cause of increasing costs of health care. | ||
| Madduck |
The only problem with healthcare is lack of imagination and willingness to try new approaches. Cost will always go up, the problem is figuring out how to pay for it. Simple example, Lung cancer caused by smoking. A totally voluntary screening program can catch about 98% of the lung cancers when they are very curable. Technology is already existing. Tobacco companies will probably pick up extra cost with prospect of dramatically increasing sales. This can increase both the amount of cigarettes consumed and the number of consumers, as well as adding about 15 years to the lifespan of a smoker. Win/win for the smokers. The taxpayor benefits as the average tax is about $2.46 per pack nationwide. Doing the math we get an additional $270 billion dollars a year to devote to paying for health care. (320 million people, 27% smokers, 1.5 packs per day) No fear of death should take these numbers up to 54% of pop. smoking about 2.5 packs per day. There are lots of similar types of income opportunities out there with changing the emphasis on curing/treating disease that are doable in the research event horizon. Making the governments spend this income on health care will be a much bigger problem that creating the income flow. | ||
| Aesquire |
When I saw the title the first thing that came to mind was Socialized Medicine would lead to a much higher death rate, dropping the number eligible for Social Security. Am I wrong? Dead right.  The problem with the medical system in the US is that it's partly socialized, and that part is both growing and messing up the part that works. The PURPOSE of Pelosicare ( Barry doen't like it when you call it after him. Or pick on his Alfred E Newman ears, ( 2 in a row, Bush had 'em too ) ) is to destroy private health insurance companies. It has been so stated aloud, in public and by Congress. Don't get me started on that As a big student of history, I'm well aware that Europe is probably the most warlike culture on the planet. Europe has some competition from China on long warlord conflicts, and is a relative newcomer compared to the middle east and southeast asia ( 14 thousand years of war ) and China certainly has Europe beat on mass murder of a counties own subjects. Though the Soviet Union comes in a close second. But the Soviets don't really count as "Europe". For much of Russia's existence, as far as Europeans cared, it was only a place where rubes and hicks come from with a joke for royalty and the place voted most likely to be invaded by a German tribe or army. ( Ok, France was the runner up. That's why French Pilots fought with Russia in WW2. Long experience in German invasions. } Heck the period after WW2 while the Soviets conquered Eastern Europe, and the Americans spent billions rebuilding Western Europe, is probably the longest period without war in Europe since the Swiss agreed to quit sending mercs out. ( if you paid for the Swiss, you probably won. So the Rest of Europe gave them the honor of defending the Pope, instead ) How long does it usually take before France OR Germany try and conquer someone? Gotta be a record. I'm not asking for the usual "oh! America! thanks for saving us from the Hun!" crap some others seem to take as our due. But be real. Without the pax Americana ( bad as that worked ) and the Soviets using puppets in the mid east/africa/southeast asia to keep us busy the European Union would be the Soviet slave states. Actually, I think Europe is headed that way full tilt right now, and with THIS president in charge in the US, he thinks that's just dandy. He may love the pomp of being a vip in the Old World, but his fathers anti-colonialist ( anti European ) attitude is very much his. Read his Biography, "Dreams Of My Father" Well good luck with that, anyway. So, it's "worked" since 1947? Social Security here has "worked" a while too. It's still a Ponzi scheme. All the money was stolen years ago, and soon it's going "poof" and we're screwed. ( and the guess when moves 5 years closer every year ) |
